Review of 1917 (2019) by Markhreviews — 07 Feb 2020

At the end of “1917,” Writer/Director Sam Mendes (“American Beauty,” the James Bond installments “Skyfall” and “Spectre”) dedicates the film to his grandfather, “who told us the stories.” For a film so presumably personal, “1917” is surprisingly lacking in both passion and perspective.

Rather than offering any sort of commentary about WW I or the conditions surrounding it, Mendes settles for a formulaic thriller. Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) is summoned by his commanding general. The allies have just received intelligence that their forces will be heading into a trap if they mount an offensive against the Germans the following morning. Blake and Lance Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) must go through enemy lines to deliver the message to the field commander, located nine miles away, to cancel the attack. If they fail, 1,600 men, including Corporal Blake’s brother, will be slaughtered. The film follows the two corporals’ peril-filled trek to hand-deliver the order and save the troops.

Technically, this film is impeccable. Long shots have been a Hollywood staple for years. They’re usually used to establish an environment. In this case, long shots are used consistently to follow the action, offering a vast visual scope that is sometimes breathtaking. The filming in “1917” is further complicated because Mendes often chooses to track the actors with a single camera that follows the action for several minutes and several hundred yards of movement without any apparent editing. Given these challenges, “1917” is in many ways Cinematographer Roger Deakins’ movie. Deakins has 80 credits as a cinematographer, dating back to 1975. His diverse body of work ranges from “Blade Runner 2049” to “Skyfall” to “Fargo” to “The Big Lebowski.” For “1917,” he is favored to win a second Oscar. His use of light and shadow in this film’s night scene is nothing less than a master class.

The acting is also first-rate. As Schofield, George MacKay’s haunted expressions, stilted gait and thousand-yard stare communicate clearly the costs of war, with no need for exposition to underline the point. Familiar faces Colin Firth and Benedict Cumberbatch lend their gravitas at key points.

But ultimately, Mendes has made a war movie with a surprising air of detachment. We learn little about the characters along the way, other than their single-minded determination to accomplish their goal. We come to understand that this “war to end all wars” was intensely personal, with enemies often shot up close, stabbed or even strangled with bare hands. But commentary about this fact, or any larger points about war or human nature, is absent. As a result, “1917” is a war film that’s surprisingly bloodless.